<quoted text>Many, many scientists--people who are much smarter than you or I--I have determined after years of study and thorough observation that homosexuality is a normal orientation along the continuum of sexual orientation.Who, exactly, are YOU to refute their findings?Do you have an advanced degree in medicine, psychology, pediatrics, sociology, biology, or any other physical/mental health sciences?You, like Kimare, are just some guy with an OPINION.Why is it that you will accept all other aspects of medicine (I assume you go to a doctor on occassion), but are unwilling to accept their conclusions that homosexuality is normal?How many times have you heard about a homosexual falling ill simply because he/she is homosexual?I'm not talking about AIDS or any other STD that impacts BOTH heterosexuals and homosexuals.I'm talking about a person who cannot function in society due to their being attracted to a member of the same gender?Granted, there are countries and communities where being homosexual is difficult because the community has MORAL, not scientific, objections homosexuality.You need to get it through your head that homosexuality has been here since the beginning of mankind and will be here long after you or I are gone. To pretend that it is something that can be cured or that it will go away simply because YOU disagree with it is childish. It's a form of magical thinking.The sooner you come to peace with this FACT, the happier you will be.

And, as I am sure that you have noticed, I am not saying that homosexuality should be outlawed or abolished. It's your choice to make, not mine. I am against lowering the bar to allow any old pairing off of a duo to lay claim to an old and well-respected title. I am also against "Operation Amnesty", which allows any illegal alien to lay claim to the title of "American". It's the same principle at work, as far as I am concerned.

<quoted text>Why do haters of monogamous opposie sex marriage, ignore the fact that marriage is a sexual union of husband and wife?<quoted text>Why do they feel compelled to blur the distinctions between different types of sexual behavior?<quoted text>Yes they do, and that is understandable. However that doesn't all thing are equal, or serve the same function. Distinctions can be, and are made.Marriage, at its core, in the larger sense, is a sexual union of a male and female. Granted there will always be some individual marriages that are not sexual, either by choice or physical obstacles, but that doesn't change the nature of marriage itself. Societies throughout human history have recognized this. That's why KiMare points to it a a constraint on evolutionary mating. Human reproduction is sexual. That's probably why SSM, despite some scattered historical examples, and the presence of same sex sexual behavior in various cultures, never truly took root,certainy not in western civilization. If it had, there'd be no need for this debate. SSM would have already developed, and would exist, alongside of both monogamous and polygamous opposite sex marriage.

Oh my GOSH! Enough with the evolution and reproduction already! We get it! You guys make babies! Big deal! Is that how you see your wife--a baby factory? Do you not love her? Do you not see her as a friend?

Is she just supposed to spit out child after child for as long as her body is fertile?

I forget which comic said this, but it makes a good point... "It's a womb, not a clown car!"

There are over 7 BILLION people on this planet. As Judge Judy likes to point out to 19 year old girls who have 3 children and another on the way, "That's enough!"

Being married is not singularly about popping out children. Why is it that you guys do not understand this?

<quoted text>1.) First off you try to equate the terms "sexual intercourse" and "coitus". They are not the same words."Sexual intercourse" takes place between two people of any gender. Do you deny that same-gender couples have sexual intercourse? I don't think you do.

Same sex couples are sexually intimate with each other, but due to lack of corresponding genetilia, do not engage in coitus.

Definitions and stimulation factors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercour...Sexual intercourse is also known as copulation, coitus or coition; coitus is derived from the Latin word coitio or coire, meaning "a coming together or joining together" or "to go together" and is usually defined as penile-vaginal penetration.[3][29][30][31] Penetration by the hardened, erect penis is additionally known as intromission, or by the Latin name immissio penis (Latin for "insertion of the penis").[32] Copulation, although usually used to describe the mating process of non-human animals, is defined as "the transfer of the sperm from male to female" or "the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman".[33][34] As such, common vernacular and research often limit sexual intercourse to penile-vaginal penetration, with virginity loss being predicated on the activity,[9][10][19][20] while the term sex and the phrase "having sex" commonly mean any sexual activity – penetrative and non-penetrative.[9][14][35] The World Health Organization states that non-English languages and cultures use different terms for sexual activity, with slightly different meanings.[14]

"Coitus" very specifically refers to the "sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina." (from the on line dictionary "Farflex" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coitus ).

Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. What did he mean by "sex"?

You may think I'm splitting hairs. But it's important for you to understand that there is a very distinct difference.2.) Marriage licenses in states that recognize same-gender marriage have removed gender and replaced it with "person" or "applicant".[QUOTE]

In other words the have redefined it.

[QUOTE]3.) You don't have to explain all of the various sexual acts. We're all adults.

Whew...that's a relief...I was worried there for a moment.:)

4.) I'm in no way trying to be disrespectful.

No I. Thanks...grazie.

I just wanted to paint the picture of the police busting down a couple's door and forcing them into divorce court, because word had gotten out that they had never consummated their marriage.

No one is advocating that VV, nor am I. However, as it is legally permissible in certain states, a person can have their marriage annulled for failure to consummate. It simply illustrates that not every aspect of American marital jurisprudence in gender neutral.

<quoted text>Judge Walker excluded evidence and witnesses; that's why he misruled. The US Supreme Court has reviewed a state's right to redefine marriage as one man and one woman in Baker v Nelson; that stands as precedent.

Yes, this upsets their applecart: "In the case of Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to different-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent."So, it didn't really happen, as far as they're concerned... Just give them their yum-yums...

<quoted text>Aren't you splitting hairs, now? Any alcoholic will tell you that it is their right to be an alcoholic, and many also live happy, productive lives. This doesn't make the rest of us any more likely to applaud their choices.

Well, it is entirely legal to be an alcoholic. There's no law against it.

And by its very definition in medicine and psychiatry, you CANNOT be an alcoholic and live a happy and productive life.

A person who drinks is not an alcoholic. A person whose drinking interfers with his/her family, work, or community life; or a person who has repeated legal or medical issues related to uncontrolable alcohol use is an alcoholic.

There is not such thing as a "functioning alcoholic". It's an oxymoron, like the term "peace missile". It just doesn't make sense.

<quoted text>Aren't you splitting hairs, now? Any alcoholic will tell you that it is their right to be an alcoholic, and many also live happy, productive lives. This doesn't make the rest of us any more likely to applaud their choices.

I don’t think any same sex couples are worried about not getting your applause.

Your applause isn’t the issue here, but a point of law.

Your approval or applause is not needed for anyone to marry.

Reading the judges’ comments on DOMA sure shed some light

with DMOA it is more clear

There are some 120,000 legally married same sex couples in the US today. The Judges asked the lawyers for a list of reasons those legally married people should not receive the same federal benefits and protections that any other legally married couple has.

No list appeared, the lawyers didn’t seem to know what to do with that request.

<quoted text>since the judges used the terminology of "redefine" i'll grant you that.

Whoa H&M....was that an admission from the Team Rainbow, that SSM redefines marriage? Hallelujah...praise The Lord.......just teasing, but thanks none the less.

HOWEVER, they also conceded that homosexuals are barred (walled off) from enjoying the same fundamental right of marriage as heterosexuals.

Hmmmmmm.....the problem with that is the reality of mixed orientation marriages, including those who truly choose to marry, or stay together by choice.

so, no, homosexuals cannot marry a member of the same sex and have that legal union recognized in all 50 states as the laws are currently written. however, from the looks of things,

That requires first redefining the legal definition of marriage.

if you read the transcripts, that's going to change. DOMA looks pretty much an over and done deal - the case brought before SCOTUS today dealt with a widow's claim of being forced by the irs to pay inheretance taxes on property she and her legally married female spouse shared.

It may, or may not, or it may be a mixed ruling.

however you may feel about same sex marriage will not stop the judges from changing the laws regarding same sex marriage. you may dislike their ruling. you may disagree with their ruling. but the laws will be what they will be.

That may happen, or they may allow the states to choose to regulate marriage as they see fit, even creating civil unions for SSCs, which a number of states have done. Would a CU suffice, if the Feds treated it as marriage with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities, they extend to marriage? What is your opinion on that?

<quoted text>Same sex couples are sexually intimate with each other, but due to lack of corresponding genetilia, do not engage in coitus.Definitions and stimulation factorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercour...Sexual intercourse is also known as copulation, coitus or coition; coitus is derived from the Latin word coitio or coire, meaning "a coming together or joining together" or "to go together" and is usually defined as penile-vaginal penetration.[3][29][30][31] Penetration by the hardened, erect penis is additionally known as intromission, or by the Latin name immissio penis (Latin for "insertion of the penis").[32] Copulation, although usually used to describe the mating process of non-human animals, is defined as "the transfer of the sperm from male to female" or "the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman".[33][34] As such, common vernacular and research often limit sexual intercourse to penile-vaginal penetration, with virginity loss being predicated on the activity,[9][10][19][20] while the term sex and the phrase "having sex" commonly mean any sexual activity – penetrative and non-penetrative.[9][14][35] The World Health Organization states that non-English languages and cultures use different terms for sexual activity, with slightly different meanings.[14]<quoted text>Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. What did he mean by "sex"?<quoted text>Whew...that's a relief...I was worried there for a moment.:)<quoted text>No I. Thanks...grazie.<quoted text>No one is advocating that VV, nor am I. However, as it is legally permissible in certain states, a person can have their marriage annulled for failure to consummate. It simply illustrates that not every aspect of American marital jurisprudence in gender neutral.

Only men and women can engage in coitus. I FULLY understand that.

But "consummation of marriage" DOES NOT REQUIRE "Coitus". It requires "sexual intercourse". And sexual intercourse can be any variety of sexual acts between two people--opposite sex or same sex.

That's the only point I'm try to make.

It seems like you're trying to say that gay people can never be legally married because they cannot engage in coitus. And I just haven't seen any laws where "coitus" is required. A guy who has had his penis shot off in war would not be able to engage in coitus. A transgender male who has had "the big operation" and now has a penis COULD engage in coitus.

<quoted text>Judge Walker excluded evidence and witnesses; that's why he misruled. The US Supreme Court has reviewed a state's right to redefine marriage as one man and one woman in Baker v Nelson; that stands as precedent.

Not to mention this: "Vaughn R. Walker, U.S. district chief judge in San Francisco, declared unconstitutional Proposition 8—the voter-approved referendum by which California citizens declared marriage to be a union of a man and a woman.

After carefully weighing the testimony of a bevy of social scientists, Walker found that the idea of heterosexual marriage is based on “antiquated and discredited notions of gender.” And that arguments against gay marriage are “nothing more than tautologies.”

And:“Proposition 8…enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that

the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.”[Emphasis added.]

The “evidence” is testimony by social scientists who view marriage to be a vestige of a time when men’s and women’s “roles” were defined by their “gender.” Liberals would have us believe that this is more “settled science,” just like they insist that global warming is man-made and abortions play no role in breast cancer.

Other experts disagree with Walker’s view of marriage. But, a bunch of them that had been scheduled to testify withdrew because they feared for their personal safety. As for their chief expert witness, David Blankenhorn, Walker threw out his entire testimony as “inadmissible” and to be “given essentially no weight.”

According to liberal bloggers and commentators, Blankenhorn’s credibility disintegrated under seven hours of testimony; I wasn’t there, so perhaps that was the case. Walker ended up ruling out Blankenhorn as an “expert” witness because he, according to the judge,“lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of … factual assertions [by proponents of Proposition 8].”

According to Walker, one of the things that disqualified Blankenhorn as an expert opinion witness was his alleged failure to do original research and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s puzzling for two reasons:

1. Blankenhorn is founder and president of the Institute for American Values and the author of two important and best-selling books, including Fatherless in America. He has spent a lifetime studying marriage, fatherhood and family structure, is in demand as a speaker and—not that it matters—is thoughtful and not at all like the stereotype that many gay activists accuse their opponents of being. He, in essence, conducts his research and assembles knowledge by, for example, relying on studies from other experts. But for Walker, that’s not enough.

2. And yet, despite Walker’s perspective of Blankenhorn as something of an unqualified aggregator, the judge qualified as an expert someone from the other side whose “research” was remarkably like Blankenhorn’s. George Chauncey, the judge himself noted in his opinion, is a history professor specializing in “social history, especially as it relates to gays and lesbians.” While he has “authored or edited books on the subject of gay and lesbian history,” as Walker put it, he—like Blankenhorn—“relies on government records, interview, diaries, films and advertisements along with studies by other historians and scholars in conducting his research.”I wonder how higher courts will view such discrepancies in Walker’s decision when the case is appealed.

<quoted text>No he didn't you are a liar! Try again,I've read the transcripts meny times and he did NO such thing! Try again bumper sticker boy!

Read it, and weep...

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Judge Walker excluded evidence and witnesses; that's why he misruled. The US Supreme Court has reviewed a state's right to redefine marriage as one man and one woman in Baker v Nelson; that stands as precedent.

Not to mention this: "Vaughn R. Walker, U.S. district chief judge in San Francisco, declared unconstitutional Proposition 8—the voter-approved referendum by which California citizens declared marriage to be a union of a man and a woman.

After carefully weighing the testimony of a bevy of social scientists, Walker found that the idea of heterosexual marriage is based on “antiquated and discredited notions of gender.” And that arguments against gay marriage are “nothing more than tautologies.”

And:“Proposition 8…enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that

the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.”[Emphasis added.]

The “evidence” is testimony by social scientists who view marriage to be a vestige of a time when men’s and women’s “roles” were defined by their “gender.” Liberals would have us believe that this is more “settled science,” just like they insist that global warming is man-made and abortions play no role in breast cancer.

Other experts disagree with Walker’s view of marriage. But, a bunch of them that had been scheduled to testify withdrew because they feared for their personal safety. As for their chief expert witness, David Blankenhorn, Walker threw out his entire testimony as “inadmissible” and to be “given essentially no weight.”

According to liberal bloggers and commentators, Blankenhorn’s credibility disintegrated under seven hours of testimony; I wasn’t there, so perhaps that was the case. Walker ended up ruling out Blankenhorn as an “expert” witness because he, according to the judge,“lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of … factual assertions [by proponents of Proposition 8].”

According to Walker, one of the things that disqualified Blankenhorn as an expert opinion witness was his alleged failure to do original research and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s puzzling for two reasons:

1. Blankenhorn is founder and president of the Institute for American Values and the author of two important and best-selling books, including Fatherless in America. He has spent a lifetime studying marriage, fatherhood and family structure, is in demand as a speaker and—not that it matters—is thoughtful and not at all like the stereotype that many gay activists accuse their opponents of being. He, in essence, conducts his research and assembles knowledge by, for example, relying on studies from other experts. But for Walker, that’s not enough.

2. And yet, despite Walker’s perspective of Blankenhorn as something of an unqualified aggregator, the judge qualified as an expert someone from the other side whose “research” was remarkably like Blankenhorn’s. George Chauncey, the judge himself noted in his opinion, is a history professor specializing in “social history, especially as it relates to gays and lesbians.” While he has “authored or edited books on the subject of gay and lesbian history,” as Walker put it, he—like Blankenhorn—“relies on government records, interview, diaries, films and advertisements along with studies by other historians and scholars in conducting his research.”I wonder how higher courts will view such discrepancies in Walker’s decision when the case is appealed.

<quoted text>It has also been suggested that the far right immigrate to Afghanistan and join the TalibanReligion is mandated, everyone has a gun, social customs are law upon pain of death, just as they like it

Yes, several times, you have suggested that we emigrate to Afghanistan. Funny. Why don't you guys move to another country, form your own country, where anything can fly, and the rest of us, who know better, can sit back and watch how long your "Libertine-istan" lasts....

<quoted text>I don’t want Atheism mandated, I want freedom for both those that believe in one of the billions of Gods man has dreamed up or not as they choose. Dissent is a good thing not a bad thing.Nope not the place for mebut you really should check out the Taliban... you would fit right in

But, they ARE free to do as they wish. They wish to extend their rights past the acceptable point. Are you really that familiar with the Taliban that you are recruiting for them? Helping them to undermine America?

<quoted text>Oh puh-leez. Quit trying to act like you know anything about science. The FACT that there has been a stable gay population across time and all cultures PROVES that homosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is found in EVERY species of animals (that reproduce sexually).The government isn't "forcing" any view on you. You are free to be the country's biggest dumbass. No one can force you to accept the facts, but no one is going to excuse you for being a liar.

You're dismissed. Be gone. Homosexuality is a dead-end, an activity practiced by the non-productive segment of any species. Bye now ... Don't let the door hit you on the as.... Oh, I don't care if it hits you, or not ...

<quoted text>Whoa H&M....was that an admission from the Team Rainbow, that SSM redefines marriage? Hallelujah...praise The Lord.......just teasing, but thanks none the less.<quoted text>Hmmmmmm.....the problem with that is the reality of mixed orientation marriages, including those who truly choose to marry, or stay together by choice.<quoted text>That requires first redefining the legal definition of marriage.<quoted text>It may, or may not, or it may be a mixed ruling.<quoted text>That may happen, or they may allow the states to choose to regulate marriage as they see fit, even creating civil unions for SSCs, which a number of states have done. Would a CU suffice, if the Feds treated it as marriage with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities, they extend to marriage? What is your opinion on that?

i merely conceded what a judge referred to - it's in the transcripts so i cannot deny the word he utilized in court.

why a couple decides to marry, or stay together, cannot be dictated by law. nor can it be dictated by anyone else.

i'm not sure if a CU would suffice or not. my concern is, humans being human, mistakes will be made in either the editing of existing laws to include appropriate CU verbiage or in writing additional laws. this will be expensive for the fed to accomplish and lengthy (in terms of writing and time). from my own personal experience, it's never an easy task, the old adage "all ya gotta do is" is never as simple as the sales guy thinks it is (i speak from an engineers perspective...LOL). i'd hate to see a couple strung up due to a verbiage error. i'd hate to see the extra expenses of rewriting laws or the costs involved when a mistake is made. i just think that allowing same sex couples to use the same terminology makes the most sense, is the expeditious means to grant everyone access to the same laws, protections and priviliges. others may feel or think differently. that's just my take on CU's.

<quoted text>Medically validated dangers of anal sex? Demeaning, unhealthy?ahahahahahahhaahhaahhaahahahahhahahaThen don't do it, prude face. YOU don't get to make that decision for anyone else.

"Then don't do it, prude face. YOU don't get to make that decision for anyone else." Umm.... We are not telling you not to. We are drawing the line between your practicing it, and using the government to wedge it into our midst, under the misappropriated title of "valid marriage". Different.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.